Talk:Anal sex

edit requested

Please remove the pornographic image attached to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.171.32 (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LupusRexRgis (talk • contribs) 08:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.2.143 (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from J.Schmill, 17 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Requesting deletion (2):

1) "Liwat, or the sin of Lot's people, is officially prohibited by most Islamic sects."
Liwat is not allowed by ALL Islamic sects. There is literally no sect of Islam that allows this. The original page for this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_anal_sex cites an unreliable source which do not elaborate at all about anal sex in the perspective of Islam, not to mention having no authority at all to provide accurate interpretation of the Hadith. Did anyone ever opened the source link? It's just a one page containing a piece of hadith. That's about it.

The hadith that was quoted in the source is this one:
'Your wives are a tilth unto you; so go to your tilth when or how you will.' Quran (2.223)
The Quranic verse at the time was referring to the Jews who concocted that: 'If one has sexual intercourse with his wife from the back, then she will deliver a squint-eyed child.'
It is clear that one will not able to produce an offspring at all from anal sex. Therefore the Jews is not referring 'from the back' as being the anus, as women will not get pregnant AT ALL if she were to be entered from her anus, let alone to deliver a squint-eyed child. In other words, a man has to enter a woman through her vagina in order to impregnate his wife, thus the verse above is referring to a man may freely coming from the back of his wife if he so will, provided the entry is still through her vagina.

Maybe this reflects a Jewish misconception as to the origin of Asiatic persons?John Paul Parks (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There should be no questioning at all if it meant that a man can enter the wife from anus or not, as apart from the fact that the verse is specifically addressing the misconception of the Jews as explained above, there are numerous occasions in Quran that strongly disparage the act of the Luth, which is Liwat. See Al-araf. 80 8 1

Helpful sources:
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=86457
http://www.zimbio.com/Islam/articles/2044509/Unnatural+offences+Controversy
http://www.answering-christianity.com/anal_sex.htm

2) This part do not belong in the subsection of this article - Islam. Unless it is about psychological impact of prohibiting homosexual practice (which consequently involves not only Islam, but also the rest of all popular religion and culture up until our modern day), this part of the article only serve to spread a biased view and personal opinion of the author.

"As the fact that liwat is regarded as a temptation indicates, anal intercourse is not seen as repulsively unnatural so much as dangerously attractive: "one has to avoid getting buggered precisely in order not to acquire a taste for it and thus become addicted."[99] In practise, the segregation of women and the strong emphasis on virility leads to adolescents and unmarried young men seeking sexual outlets with males younger than themselves – in one study in Morocco, with boys in the age-range 7 to 13.[100] But deep shame attaches to the passive partner: "for this reason men stop getting fucked at the age of 15 or 16 and "forget" that they ever allowed/suffered/enjoyed it earlier."[99] Similar sexual sociologies are reported for other Muslim societies from North Africa to Pakistan and the Far East.[101]"

J.Schmill (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: In the first part of your request, you need to find a reliable source which says that all sects prohibit this. The sources you supplied, even if they were reliable sources, do not make that claim. The second portion you ask to have removed is sourced and refers explicitly to liwat and Muslim culture, so it seems appropriate to keep in this section. If you can find a reliable source which disputes these claims, then that dispute could be added. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the article/source clearly says "We sum up that having sex in anus is totally forbidden and a major sin. It is also forbidden according to the four Imams and others. ". What it means, which I hoped you have read through the whole article before coming into premature conclusion, is that Islam forbids anal sex, collectively for all sects.

The original article on "Islamic view on anal sex" uses reference from a disputable & incomplete source, which claimed that Sahih Bukhari allows anal sex. As I have clearly explained, this is false - and I have proven to you with clear explanation & complete with 3 reliable sources.

For the second part, I hope you do not confuse sufficiently sourced commentary being able to supersede the importance of relevant contents. The original title of the article is "Islamic view on anal sex" and not its psychological impact. If the latter is the case, then the original author should at least also provide positive impacts as result of Islamic view on anal sex. But he/she didn't, leading the article to be heavily biased and redundant to the whole subject. J.Schmill (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I did read your sources (briefly). The sources quote several people saying that anal sex is forbidden. You, not they, conclude from that that 'all' sects forbid it. That is not allowed here; you need the source to make the claim. I don't follow your argument on the second part at all. Are you arguing that your opinion should prevail because the source didn't cover all the aspects you feel they should have? Celestra (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The "four imams and others" is clear enough to indicate none of islamic sects allow sex in the anus. I did not conclude anything, I only summarize it so that you may understand it better, and it is well based. Unless you can find any reliable source at all that says any sect in Islam allow sex in the anus, the sentence "most of islamic sects" remains false/inaccurate. As I have said again and again, the original article bases its statement from a weak & incomplete source, and I have refuted the content from my sources. Ironically, the original statement itself is a conclusion made by the original author, yet it was acceptable to you? You only "think" that it is true, but you don't have anything to back it up. Just because you "think" something is correct, does not give you the authority to concoct it as the truth, unless you're comfortable of spreading false information. J.Schmill (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your conclusion, although I can't understand how you can draw such a broad conclusion from those few facts. Those facts fairly support a statement that some sects forbid anal sex. Saying many or most based only on your sources would be a stretch; saying all is not reasonable. For all, you should have a reliable source which explicitly concludes that every sect forbids this. I doubt such a source exists, since I read at www.al-islam.org: "The opinions of our mujtahids vary on the permissibility of anal intercourse." and "It is true that we have conflicting ahadith from our Imams on anal intercourse, ..." The writer goes on to argue that the ahadith which favor the act should be ignored and discourages the pracice, but the existence of conflicting opinions makes the broader statement unlikely. Celestra (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The author did not just discourage, he concluded this: "Using this method of solving the conflicting ahadith gives strength to the prohibitive ahadith and brings us to the preferred view that anal intercourse is not allowed." The conflicting of opinions exist, but is not without contest. And as far as the article goes, it only strengthens the ruling that anal sex is not permissible. You cannot quote from a source and treat it as reliable, but at the same time denies the author's authority on his conclusion. Unless you can find a source that says anal sex is permissible and the ruling is beyond contest, then the fact remains that all Islamic sects prohibit it.J.Schmill (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"You cannot quote from a source and treat it as reliable, but at the same time denies the author's authority on his conclusion." That's wholly untrue. "reliable" in Wikipedia's sense simply means that the author is a specialist on the topic, not just anybody. Specialists on law and many matters often disagree with each-other. When they do, we note that fact (eg "Professor Smith believes the fall of the Roman empire was caused by economic mismanagement, while Professor Jones believe it was changing population demographics") Both Smith and Jones are reliable, but we report both points of view. Your source wants to disregard some ahadith and accept others. Even then he only says it is a preferred view, not proven fact or absolute. The fact is that you essentially want to obscure the fact that there are views you don't want to be recognised. More information is almost always better than less, and we could certainly add details on the history of the debate, which according to some sources seems to have become particularly contentious with the rise of Wahhabism [1]. However I do have problems with the second para about anal sex in Muslim cultures. I'm sure it goes on, but that has no relevance to the rulings of religion as such. The problem is that the quotation says that it is seen as 'dangerously attractive' in a general sense. This personal opinion is presented as fact. Obviously it is 'attractive' to some people, but the way it is phrased implies that it it inherently and universally attractive, simply because it is treated as a crime. That's a complete non sequitur. You might as well say that sex with children is considered 'dangerously atttractive' in western cultures because it is a crime, and therefore western cultures consider it to be a 'a universal temptation', which is absurd. Paul B (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Gotta agree. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with you regarding Smith and Jones. In that case, there are three possible outcome (1)Smith is right (2)Jones is right (3) Both are right. But in our case there are only two possible outcome; either (1)Prohibited or (2)Permissible. It cannot be both. Separate opinions do not exist especially in major issue as this one without one or another being considered fallible, as far as Islamic fiqh goes. But I know that doesn't sit well with WP so I am requesting this edit instead to that particular sentence.

Liwat, or the sin of Lot's people, is officially prohibited by all Sunni Islam school of thoughts[1], but some Shia sects permit its practice between married couple[2].

[1]Anal sex strictly forbidden www.islamweb.net

[2]Preferred view on anal sex in Shia www.al-islam.org

I hope this is inline with WP's philosophy (as Paul phrased it) that 'more information is almost always better than less'. Also I'd like to know if you might consider adding more information, and possibly edit out irrelevant content as Paul has pointed out in the second paragraph. I would gladly do some research on that topic and write up an improved article with more accurate sources & neutral point of view. ThanksJ.Schmill (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

More information would include discussion of histories and debate. Dogmatic assertion from people who run websites are not generally considered reliable according to WP:RS. And, no, you are mistaken when you say "in our case there are only two possible outcome; either (1)Prohibited or (2)Permissible." There are two possible outcomes in the opinions of commentators on Sharia, of which there may be many differing ones. Clearly the literature indicates that there were differing opinions, with some scholars saying (1) and some saying (2). I don't know whether that is historical or continues today, but the opinions of individuals remain just that. Paul B (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I take it that you are not an expert yourself at Islamic jurisprudence to lecture me on that subject. Please leave it to someone with the authority to comment on that. This is not a forum for debates.

Islamweb.net is not the only Sunni Islam source where you can find fatwa on forbidding of anal sex. You can't simply call a source a mere assertion just because it wasn't written in pen and paper or parallel to your personal opinion. For the second source, Celestra used it him/herself to dispute my argument, on the basis that differing opinions exist, as far as Shia Islam is concern (as those differing opinions coming from Shia imamates).

Please proceed with editing the line as I do not see any strong argument/dispute here, as it was presented as natural as possible and only serve to add more detailed information to the original line.J.Schmill (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In the world the consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.254.228 (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

the article is about anal sex, not religion

I believe all religious analyses of anal intercourse should be moved to the articles detailing their respective religions.
does the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_roll discuss music from the zoroastrian point of view?
does the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football criticise sport as frivolity unrelated to saving souls for the lord's kingdom?
of course not: that would be ridiculous. what makes sex any different from anything else?
I believe that the various prohibitions on coffee, alcohol, dance, pleasure, hair cutting, shaving, not wearing hats, sex, driving automobiles, using electricity, sin, marriage, and all the other crazy stuff banned by all the worlds religions should be separated from the articles covering those topics and dumped into the religions' articles to which they belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.101.3 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, especially since most of the information in the 'religion' sections detail general prohibitions against sex that include anal sex, and are not about anal sex specifically. If no one objects, I will remove the section. Quigley (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Religious views also have to do with the subject. It is the reason religious views are also tackled in the Homosexuality and Sexual intercourse articles. The Anal sex article should not only tackle the acts and health effects of such acts but cultural feelings as well. Religious views are a part of cultural feelings. Coffee, alcohol, dance, pleasure, hair cutting, shaving, not wearing hats, sex, driving automobiles, using electricity, sin, marriage, etc. deal with cultural views also...even if the articles here about those things do not all address religion. What makes sex different? Religion has major influence on sexual relations; we all know this. Other articles do not matter, however, as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument on Wikipedia; it is often seen as not even a valid argument.

I have not taken part in adding religious content to this article, but others have, and I doubt they would be willing to remove the religious views. Flyer22 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "stuff banned by all the worlds religions" cannot all be covered in the articles on those religions without those articles becoming extremely huge (which is saying something, since they are already pretty huge). Some things can also seem really random-seeming. Of course religious views on anal sex are mostly going to be covered in the article about anal sex, as to address all of that in one place...and because the topic is anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course religious views are a part of cultural views, but the way the section is now, it directly quotes from scripture and religious authorities, therefore providing an original [and often strict and literal] interpretation of how the religious have influenced popular perceptions of anal sex, instead of taking it from a sociological angle. Quigley (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am completely okay with a little of it being cut down and redesigned. It's complete removal that I was concerned about. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

also a lot of comments in the religion section are unverified and lack citations, and are clearly just conjectures/opinions. For example, "Orthodox Judaism teaches that..." is uncited, and as a matter of fact, that is not necessarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.212.62 (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Health Risks

I'm rather concerned about the coverage of health-risks of anal sex. Firstly,

"The hazards are due to the vulnerability of the tissues, as the penetration of the anus may cause tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues,[9] and can damage the sphincter muscles, causing incontinence and anal prolapse."

And secondly,

"Frequent anal sex is associated with hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures."

Finally,

Physical damage to the rectum and anus can manifest as generalized ano-rectal trauma, anal fissures,[12] rectal prolapse, and exacerbating (but not causing) hemorrhoids.

For starteres, the ambiguity of saying that "anal sex is associated with hemorrhoids" but later saying that it cannot actually cause them must be cleared up. In general though, I'm getting a bit confused about this topic. I know this isn't a discussion forum or anything, it's just that when I read this article, I get a much more ghastly impression of the physical injury related health effects than on medical sites. I seem to get the impression, and maybe this is the impression you intend to give, from this article that "hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures" are almost inevitable consequences of a fairly active anal sex life ("frequent" is not defined, so it might as well not be there). And yet if I go on the NHS website it doesn't really mention any of these things and the netdoctor only talks about the STI problem[2][3]. Sure, both websites mention the importance of relaxing the sphincter muscle blahblah blah, and Dr. John Dean does mention that "Forced penetration may result in tearing of the sensitive skin around the anus or the sphincter itself. This may result in severe anal pain or even faecal incontinence." (my Italics) But surely this is a matter of the way that the sex is carried out. Should there not be more emphasis on the differences between health risks in properly-done anal sex and that which is done without lubrication or with a tense sphinter and so forth. At the very least, some kind of statistics about the prominence of these sorts of problems amongst receivers of anal sex should be added, I think (Yes, I am aware about the existing information on incontinence, but I think there should be more on the other things, such as anal prolapse.

I am not trying to deny that these problems exist, or to contradict your highly reputable sources by people who know a hell of a lot more than me, and ignorant layman, I just think a few things should be clarified because from personal experience, the majority of people I know who engage in anal sex do not have problems with "hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures", yet this article seems to suggest that these are common problems.86.181.205.252 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from DavidDeCitore, 20 December 2010

978-it semi-protected}} Setion: Prostate, clitoral and G-Spot stimulation

In addition to open communication building trust is crucial, when it comes to anal sex. Trust is built by consistently delivering on your word. In the context of anal sex the giving partner should take multiple days to do small steps of anal stimulation to gradually build her arousal towards anal play that also builds trust that the giver will not go too fast and hurt the receiver. Take the time to build trust, communicate openly about the experience of every small step, and let the receiver know it does not matter how long it takes. It is about the passion and pleasure of the journey. Thus, anal sex can be a deeply intimate experience for couples.

Section: Further Reading DeCitore, David "Arouse Her Anal Ecstasy" The Best Step-by Step Guide that Provides a Pleasurable Path to Anal Sexuality, so She Enjoys Amazing Orgasms and Loves It from Beginning to End. ISBN 978-0-615-39914-0

DavidDeCitore (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Female to male (pegging), and main image

Sections about this have been removed from this article time and time again. My guess is because the sections only had one or two sentences about it, it's not too common among heterosexuals, and the main article about the sexual practice of pegging can tackle it. I'll have to read the archives about that.

TyrS very recently added a section on it. Let me make clear that I have no problem with a section on pegging in this article or the image, as long as the section is big enough. Otherwise, I feel that it should all just be under the subsection title Experience of the Heterosexual section. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I approve of the new main image added by TyrS. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

TyrS, do you plan to expand the Pegging section? Because that's what I meant about it being under the subsection title Experience of the Heterosexual section -- that both the male-to-female and female-to-male info should be grouped under one title (Experience), as it was before your edit. If it's not going to be expanded beyond a sentence or two or even a few, I am not seeing why it should have its own section. Generally, if a topic has its own article, we should cover it well enough here first (a proper summary) while linking to the main article. I'll go ahead and expand it a bit with some information from the main article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just had to fix the subheadings under "heterosexual" because of the subsections that were meant to refer to male-to-female, and then the "experience" heading seemed unnecessary. I hope that doesn't bother anyone.

About the inclusion of a section on pegging at all, it needs to be here because, by definition, it is a form of anal sex that people practice. Without it, the coverage of the topic is unbalanced.--TyrS 05:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

Thanks to Flyer22 for adding more text to the pegging section, thus helping to balance out and thereby improve the whole article.--TyrS 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

No problem. And for the Homosexual section, do you think we should add a subsection on anal penetration in the lesbian community? I just thought about this earlier today -- we don't have any information in this article on that. I'm just wondering if it needs a subsection or just a paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that occurred to me too, and I did a little research but (as you can imagine with only a cursory look) didn't find anything reliable (to say the least). But certainly, if you have time. (Unfortunately, I currently have no reliable citations or anything though.)--TyrS 05:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Anal_sex#Prostate.2C_clitoral_and_G-Spot_stimulation

I'm going to remove the following text (an extended discussion of why clitoral and vaginal orgasm may not be different), since (1) this information can be found on the relevant pages by interested readers, and (2) it's not particularly relevant to the article's subject.
(Text in question:
"The clitoris surrounds the vagina somewhat like a horseshoe.[21] The Gräfenberg spot, or G-Spot, is a small area behind the female pubic bone surrounding the urethra and accessible through the anterior wall of the vagina. An orgasm attained through G-Spot stimulation is referred to as "vaginal", because it results from stimulation inside the vagina. The G-Spot is also thought to have legs which are accessible through anal penetration, but recent hypotheses, as well as discoveries, about the size of the clitoris show that clitoral tissue extends considerably inside the vagina. This research may possibly invalidate any attempt to claim that clitoral orgasm and vaginal orgasm are two different things.[19][24]")--TyrS 02:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, "It's relevant because it has to do with G-Spot and clitoral stimulation, and as more research comes up, we are finding that [the] two are most likely the same thing." We discuss prostate stimulation in that section. It's only natural that we discuss clitoral and G-Spot stimulation in that section as well, since these are the ways that women orgasm and are the things which may lead to a woman achieving an orgasm through anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, it's really unclear why you think vaginal vs clitoral orgasm is so relevant to this topic that it needs to be restated in such detail here (instead of, for example, using a "see also" g-spot, clitoris, etc, note). The text I removed still does not read as relevant. It sounds as if you're trying to promote a personal belief: "we are finding that the two are most likely the same thing" doesn't constitute any kind of scientific consensus, and this material really doesn't need to be presented in this way here, since interested readers can easily find it at the relevant articles. Regarding the prostate stimulation, the difference is that that isn't necessarily covered in depth in a more specific article.--TyrS 03:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As I just stated on my talk page: I am not sure how you view discussing prostate simulation and where the prostate is located as relevant but not the information about where the G-Spot is located and its connect to the clitoris. Just as knowing where the prostate is...is relevant, the same goes for the G-Spot. The information regarding the G-Spot and clitoris likely being of the same origin is relevant to the topic at hand as well. It is not as though the section goes into a bunch of info on the two topics, which have their own articles. It is just as much information as what is stated about prostate stimulation. I also assure you that I have no personal enthusiasm for anal sex. There is no personal promotion going on either.

"Regarding the prostate stimulation, the difference is that that isn't necessarily covered in depth in a more specific article." Let me point out that there is no policy on limiting a topic to just a see also if the information is covered in other articles. If anything, the topic is usually partially discussed in one article with a link pointing to the more in-depth material. That is what I have done. I have made a short paragraph on female sexual stimulation, covering the main points -- how women orgasm and the most important bits of that information. Not seeing how it isn't relevant at all. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

To further explain, I reverted your removal because your version ends with this:

...but a physiological explanation of why some women may find anal stimulation pleasurable is that the clitoris has "legs" that extend along the vaginal lips back to the anus.[23]

It ends with that without touching on what the clitoris or G-Spot is and why they are so important to female sexual stimulation, which is odd, especially given that we touch on what the "male G-Spot is." It seems even more sexist than your concern over some other matters. People get educated right away on the prostate, but they have to go to the Clitoris and G-Spot articles to know what the heck we're talking about on that matter? It is not how good and featured articles are usually done here; and I do strive for something close to that level (Good and Featured articles) with most of my editing at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone

A word of caution: editors need to be careful that they don't let their personal enthusiasm for a topic mean that Wikipedia starts to sound like a promoter of any particular practices/products/services/etc. Please keep in mind that, as in any Wikipedia article, the tone of the text should be kept as objective, neutral and relevant as possible, no matter how editors may personally feel about it.--TyrS 03:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)